Taoism and Buddhism in T’ang China
Taoism and Buddhism both had a profound influence on all aspects of Chinese life during the T’ang period (617-907). Both religions captured the imagination of all levels of society; they were seen as a way out of suffering, a liberation from the trials of everyday life. Moreover, they influenced the art, literature, and science of their times. Their corresponding philosophies were embraced by the elite as guides on the search for ultimate truth. It was during this period that Buddhism, a foreign religion, gained a distinctly Chinese flavour, as can be evidenced by the foundation of religious schools such as Ch’an and philosophical schools such as Hua-yen. This essay will examine Buddhism and Taoism during the T’ang period, particularly under the reigns of Kao-tsung and Empress Wu, who both saw religion as propaganda, and as a way to maintain stability throughout the empire.
Taoism had its philosophy deeply rooted in the social consciousness by the time of the T’ang dynasty. Central to its teachings was the Tao, the transcendent “Way” of the universe – the ultimate, undefinable reality, inherent in everything from the stars to human beings; it was eternal, ineffable, spontaneous, and yet it dynamically encompassed all matter. Through wu-wei, meaning “non-action”, or “creative quietude”[1], people could “flow with the current of the Tao”[2] and be at one with the cosmos. Fundamental to the philosophy of the Tao is the classical Chinese concept of yin-yang – the harmony of opposites. Taoism prefers intuitive wisdom to rational knowledge; it emphasises spontaneity and naturalness. Taoism, like Buddhism, can be seen as a way of liberation from the material world.
From its institutionalisation into a religion during the second century, the ancient philosophy of Taoism gained a new layer of meaning; out of its original simplicity grew an intricate mythology. Lao Tzu, the semi-legendary author of its central doctrine, the Tao Te Ching, was deified and made a member of a holy trinity that included the Heavenly King of the Primal Beginning and the Jade Emperor. The Taoism that now issued forth was a Taoism for the masses, a Taoism strongly influenced by the colourful Mahayana Buddhism that had come into China from India. Complex rituals were performed in monasteries, and “the Taoist priesthood made cosmic life power available for ordinary villagers.”[3] Taoism, in this way, extended itself to become an organised religion influential in the lives of the common people.
There was a strong connection between the imperial family and the Taoist church during the T’ang dynasty. Taoism served to unite the increasingly far-reaching Chinese empire, spanning across different ethnic groups and maintaining universal peace and stability. T’ang Kao-tsu, the founder of the dynasty, sought to legitimise his rather precarious position on the throne by identifying Lao Tzu, who shared his surname of Li, as the royal ancestor. Taoism was named the first religion in the state, even above Confucianism, which had so long formed the core of Chinese society. Buddhism, an exotic religion, was ranked last. The Tao Te Ching was propagated throughout the empire, and each T’ang ruler sought to out-do the last in lavishing grand posthumous titles on its author.
Taoism’s contributions to science, literature and the visual arts were remarkable. The Taoists’ pursuit of health and the prolongation of natural life placed the Taoists at the fore of the medicine of their day. They also created meticulously-illustrated catalogues for the identification of sacred minerals, plants, and fungi. In the world of words, the poetic imagery of Taoist literature was much admired and copied by secular writers; both the Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu spawned many replicates. Li Po, arguably the greatest of all Chinese poets, was an adherent of Taoism; its philosophy had a profound influence on his writings. His works are renowned for their great eloquence and beauty, for their depiction of wild nature, and their deep naturalness and spontaneity. Taoism also maintained a strong influence on the visual arts; Taoist artists were skilled calligraphers, figure painters, and talisman makers. The emperor T’ai-tsung was a zealous collector of the calligraphy of the Ch’in Taoist master, Wang Hsi-chih, who was considered to be among the greatest of all calligraphers. The Taoist philosophy also stimulated Chinese landscape painting.
The reign of Kao-tsung (649-83) ushered an era of strong Taoist fervour. Though some scholars interpret the Emperor’s patronage of Taoism as a result of his clutch on power growing increasingly weak under the dominion of his consort, Empress Wu, it is also possible to see it as astute political propaganda.[4] A chain of Taoist monasteries spanning the empire was founded in circa 666; in 672, the T’ai-p’ing princess was ordained in a Taoist nunnery. In the next two centuries, twelve other princesses would follow her example. By 678 the Tao Te Ching had been placed in the imperial examination system; this was one of the many examples demonstrating the great importance allotted to Taoism. The religion continued to flourish as its bonds with the royal family and the state grew stronger than ever. It was a golden age for Taoism.
During Kao-Tsung’s later years, he suffered from a series of paralytic strokes; though ostensibly he was still emperor, his power was actually in the hands of his consort, Wu Chao. The latter had spent some time as a nun in the Buddhist order, and from the beginning it was evident where her sympathies lay. Already in the years of 672-675 the empress ordered the carving out of the colossal statue of Buddha surrounded by bodhisattvas in the Lung-men caves.
When Kao-tsung finally died in 683, Empress Wu, after deposing the rightful emperor, her son Chung-tsung, replaced him with his brother, Jui-tsung, who served purely as a nominal ruler while she took the empire into her own hands. Whereas Confucianism was solidly against the possibility of a woman ruling in her own right, and Taoism could similarly offer her no support[5], Buddhism provided her with exactly what she wanted: legitimisation of her power. A group of Buddhist followers presented her with the Ta-yün-ching (The Great Cloud Sutra), which outlined the prophecy that a female ruler would arise in south India 700 years after the Buddha’s death. They wrote commentaries on the sutra that drew an analogy between the empress’ life and that of the Indian princess. Armed with this, Empress Wu further claimed to be an earthly incarnation of Maitreya, the Future Buddha.
In the ninth month of 690, she officially proclaimed herself the empress of a new dynasty, designated the “Chou”. She set up a network of Ta-yün Temples throughout the empire; these, along with the distribution of the Ta-yün-ching and her claim to be Maitreya, she used to obtain a popular following from the people. Under her patronage, Buddhism blossomed; in 691 she decreed that Buddhism should be ranked as the first religion in the empire, reversing the policies of the earlier T’ang rulers.[6] The sculptural activities at the Lung-men caves flourished and Buddhist temples rivalled even the imperial palaces in magnificence of architecture; numerous translations of Buddhist texts were sponsored by the state, with the Empress Wu personally partaking in the effort.[7]
Enthusiastic imperial support was given to two new schools of Buddhism, Ch’an and Hua-yen. Empress Wu’s respect for Ch’an Buddhism is evidenced by her invitation of Shen-hsiu, the elderly founder of the Northern Ch’an school, to the imperial court; indeed, when he came, she showed her deference by kneeling down before him. Shen-hsiu, at the time already over ninety years of age and venerated for his meditational techniques, became exceedingly popular, with both the common people and high-ranking officials among his followers. He was named the Master of the Dharma in the Two Capitals and the Teacher of Three Emperors. When he died in 706, he was mourned by hundreds of thousands of people and given the posthumous title of Ta-t’ung Ch’an-shih (The Ch’an Master Ta-t’ung).
Ch’an (literally, “meditation”) can be seen as a manifestation of the practical side of Chinese character. Ch’an Buddhists practised awareness constantly, even during the execution of mundane tasks, such as washing the dishes and chopping wood. Ch’an was concerned with living entirely in the present moment. Like Taoism, Ch’an was deeply mistrustful of words and stressed the ineffability of reality. Reason was similarly condemned; logical thinking was seen as a barrier to enlightenment, the perception of ultimate truth and reality. Ch’an was popular among the common people as it was pragmatic and applicable to their everyday lives.
The main typically Chinese philosophical school of Buddhism during the T’ang period was the Hua-yen, which claimed the Avatamsaka Sutra (Hua-yen ching) as the zenith of the Buddha’s teachings. The identifying theme of this sutra is its doctrine on the interrelatedness of all things. This interrelatedness is portrayed by the imagery of an interconnected web of pearls, each reflecting all the others, and of a tower that contains thousands of other towers, each with a separate existence of its own, each in harmony with all the others, each containing the others. This interconnectedness of all things can indeed be seen as the pinnacle of Buddhist philosophy.
Popular Buddhism, meanwhile, blossomed. Buddhist temples and monasteries served as the venues of various grandiose festivals in which all classes of society participated with equal enthusiasm. The close connection between the Buddhist community and the imperial family was demonstrated by festivals celebrating the emperor’s birthday and commemorating past emperors and empresses. Other festivals of a more religious nature were the Lantern Festival; the Festival of the Buddha’s Birthday; the Festival Honouring the Relics of the Buddha; the All Souls’ Feast, or Ullambana. The lavishness and convivial spirit of these festivals exemplified Buddhism as a religion equally attractive to the masses as to the elite and the imperial family.
Buddhism had an enormous influence on many faces of the prism of Chinese society. The colourful writings of the Buddhists inspired Chinese authors to unleash their imaginations into a new world of fantasy, as can be seen from the Ming dynasty novel Hsi-yu-chi (Record of a Trip to the West), a fictitious account of the monk Hsüan-Tsang’s journey to India, in which he is accompanied by a monkey spirit, a pig spirit, and a water spirit. The Buddhist stories told to the general populace by monks by means of proselytization also made a contribution to the development of the novel in China. In language itself, the new words invented by Chinese Buddhists that were either translations or transliterations of Buddhist ideas found a permanent place in the Chinese vocabulary. The Buddhist influence on art was also profound. Ch’an landscape painters sought to portray the essence of their subjects, rather than their exterior forms. Great spontaneity and suddenness of brushstrokes and meditational attitudes were trademarks of the Ch’an masters, who often depicted the birds, flowers, rivers, and mountains that were their artistic insights into reality. Buddhist architecture featured monumental wooden temples and tall, many-storied pagodas usually constructed from bricks. Buddhist monks made great contributions to science, especially in the fields of astronomy, medicine, and mathematics.
In conclusion, both Taoism and Buddhism played an integral part in T’ang China, transforming the lives of a whole spectrum of people. Throughout the dynasty, the ruling house saw religion as a means to tie the nation together, to unify the people, and to solidify and conserve their power. Kao-tsung and his consort, Empress Wu, both utilized religion by way of propaganda, causing Taoism and Buddhism respectively to thrive. Both religions had a gargantuan influence on culture and made pioneering improvements in the science of their times. The philosophical schools of Taoism and Buddhism, although more recondite, also prospered; they provided answers to the metaphysical questions of those who sought ultimate truth, and continue to provide us with those answers today. Taoism and Buddhism are two jewels of Chinese history; though different – one jade and the other lapis lazuli – both can ultimately be seen as responses to the same need that is inherent in us all, the need for a higher, celestial truth.
[1] H. Smith, The World’s Religions, San Francisco, 1991, p. 207.
[2] Huai Nan Tzu, quoted in J. Needham, Science and Civilisation in China, London, 1956, vol. 2, p. 88.
[3] D. Overmyer, Religions of China, New York, 1986, p. 39.
[4] S. Weinstein, Buddhism under the T’ang, Cambridge, 1987, p. 29.
[5] T. H. Barrett, Taoism under the T’ang, London, 1996, p. 40.
[6] S. Weinstein, Buddhism under the T’ang, Cambridge, 1987, p. 43.
[7] Ibid., p. 44.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Tsu, L., tr. Feng, Gia-Fu and English, J., Tao Te Ching, New York, Vintage Books, 1972.
Secondary Sources
Ed. Abbate, F., tr. Phillips, P. L., Chinese Art, London, Octopus Books, 1972.
Barrett, T. H., Taoism under the T’ang, London, Wellsweep Press, 1996.
Ch’en, K. S., Buddhism in China: A Historical Survey, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1974.
Needham, J., Science and Civilisation in China, 7 vols., London, Cambridge University Press, 1954-76.
Overmyer, D., Religions of China, New York, Harper & Row, 1986.
Shih, H., “Ch’an (Zen) Buddhism in China: Its History and Method”, Philosophy East and West, April 1953, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 3-24.
Smith, H., The World’s Religions, San Francisco, HarperCollins, 1991.
Weinstein, S. Buddhism under the T’ang, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1987.
The Soviet Revolution
The Soviet Revolution was a unique event in the history of mankind; it made Russia the first country to establish a communist regime, an actualisation of Marxist ideals. The revolutions of 1905 and February[1] 1917 paved the way for socialist revolution: the year 1905 saw the creation of soviets, councils elected by workers,[2] which became all-important in the upheavals of 1917 and indeed changed the face of Russia. Between 1905 and 1917, Russian government was remoulded from autocracy to fragile democracy and finally socialism.
The 1905 Revolution was the first step away from undiluted autocracy. Russia’s defeat in the war against Japan saw an upsurge in the population’s discontent. After Bloody Sunday, the massacre of about 130 workers bearing a petition to the Tsar, the whole nation rose in revolt.[3] The St Petersburg Soviet was established by socialist leaders to direct revolutionary activities; these reached a peak in October 1905, and the Tsar was forced to allow a legislative parliament to be elected.[4] The Russian people enjoyed greater civil and political rights as a result.
But the socio-economic climate gradually worsened. The First World War was one of the foremost catalysts of the February Revolution of 1917. The war had a severe impact on Russia: the army suffered a number of defeats and the country underwent an economic and social crisis; serious food shortages followed. The revolution was a spontaneous reaction to the appalling living conditions that were imposed on the majority of the people. In Petrograd,[5] 90, 000 people demonstrated for bread on February 23.[6] This escalated into a general strike on February 26, and the city garrison, which at first fought against the crowds, soon joined the revolutionaries.[7] With no army to defend it, the three-hundred-year-old Romanov Dynasty collapsed on March 3 and Russia became a de facto republic.[8]
Dual power was established: that of the new Provisional Government and the Petrograd Soviet. Essentially bourgeois, the Provisional Government consisted largely of liberals; although it enacted much progressive legislation,[9] it could not achieve the peace the masses craved, and neither did it carry out land reform.[10] Demonstrations effectively brought down the Provisional Government in April and as a result in May it became a coalition government, with moderate socialists from the Soviet among its ranks.[11] Nevertheless, the government went through a number of internal crises throughout 1917, and the Russian people were increasingly dissatisfied with it.
The Petrograd Soviet of Soldiers’ and Workers’ Deputies[12] represented the voice of the masses. It was divided between three main revolutionary parties: the Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks and Bolsheviks. The Socialist Revolutionaries, who promised agrarian reforms, were ever-popular with the peasant majority of the Russian population. The Mensheviks and Bolsheviks shared a strong grounding in Marxist principles; however, while the Mensheviks rejected socialist revolution as premature, the Bolsheviks insisted that Russia was ready to instigate what they believed would be the first of a chain of socialist revolutions worldwide. Vladimir Lenin, their brilliantly politically-minded leader, spearheaded this radical cause.
It is in fact arguable that without Lenin the October Revolution would never have happened; without his leadership the Bolsheviks might have never had the urge, or the courage, to seize power. When he returned to Russia from Swiss exile he shocked members of his party with his April Theses. His ideas of immediate revolutionary action leading to socialism were greeted with almost unanimous opposition.[13] The dissenters were proved justified when the Bolsheviks staged an unsuccessful coup in July.[14] Numerous leading Bolsheviks were arrested, and Lenin escaped into exile in Finland. The party trembled on the verge of non-existence.[15]
But in August another crisis in the Coalition Government, the “Kornilov affair”, let the Bolsheviks regain their strength.[16] Public opinion of the Coalition Government and the moderate socialists represented in it plummeted. In early September, the Bolsheviks began to win majorities in the Petrograd and Moscow soviets,[17] and Leon Trotsky, a prominent Bolshevik, was elected chair of the Petrograd Soviet.
While it is controversial whether the October Revolution was a shrewd coup d’etat or an authentic proletarian revolution, it is certain that its success was due to the “complete disintegration of governmental authority.”[18] The Bolsheviks, led by Lenin¸ sprang to the opportunity to seize power in the name of the Soviet. During the night of October 24-25, Bolshevik troops[19] occupied key positions in Petrograd. On October 25, the troops took the Winter Palace; the weakened Coalition Government had no armed forces to protect it and was dissolved without much trouble. On October 26, the Bolsheviks declared that power had passed to the soviets.[20]
What followed was not the socialist coalition government that the masses expected, but a dictatorship by the Bolshevik party.[21] However, the regime took a long time to consolidate: the Bolsheviks had to conclude a peace with the major European powers and go through a long period of civil war before their power was secure. Russia finally became the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1922.[22] Lenin and his exclusively Bolshevik government[23] succeeded in transforming Marxist doctrine into a reality, boldly transforming Russia into the first communist country in the world.
[1] All dates in this essay are Old Style.
[2] See Peter Kenez, A History of the Soviet Union from the Beginning to the End (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 8.
[3] “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”, The New Encyclopædia Britannica (Macropedia), 15th ed., vol. 28 (Chicago, 1991) 998.
[4] The revolution was effectively suppressed, as were the soviets.
[5] Raphael Abramovitch, The Soviet Revolution 1917-1939 (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1962), 12.
[6] Ibid., 12.
[7] Martin McCauley, The Soviet Union 1917-1991, 2nd ed. (London: Longman, 1981), 1.
[8] Raphael Abramovitch, The Soviet Revolution 1917-1939 (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1962), 2. Also see McCauley, The Soviet Union, 2.
[9] The Provisional Government abolished capital punishment, declared amnesty to political prisoners, and granted the people the right to strike. See ibid.
[10] Peace and land reform were intrinsically connected. With millions of peasants fighting for Russia it was impracticable for the Government to do anything about land reform. The troops would be severely deflated by peasants returning home to claim their piece of land, and the Government did not have the means to compensate the landlords for their loss. But peace would have been hard, almost impossible, to achieve. See Peter Kenez, A History of the Soviet Union from the Beginning to the End (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 22.
[11] McCauley, The Soviet Union, 4; see also Geoffrey Hosking, A History of the Soviet Union (London: Fontana Press, 1985), 47. Alexander Kerensky, a prominent Socialist Revolutionary, became Prime Minister in July. See Martin McCauley, Russia since 1914 (London: Longman, 1998), 7.
[12] A successor of the earlier St Petersburg Soviet, which had been liquidated by the Tsar. The Petrograd Soviet was established on 27 February, 1917. See McCauley, 1.
[13] The Petrograd Committee of the Bolshevik party rejected the theses 13 votes to 2, with 1 abstention. One comment by a Bolshevik on the April Theses was, “Delirium, the delirium of a madman!” See Edward Hallett Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution, vol 1. (London: Macmillan, 1950), 79-81.
[14] The “July Days”. See McCauley, The Soviet Union, 4.
[15] McCauley, The Soviet Union, 5.
[16] Although some aspects of the affair remain ambiguous, it seems that Kerensky saw General Kornilov as a threat from the right and ordered him to send troops to suppress an imaginary second Bolshevik coup. When Kornilov did this, Kerensky charged him of treason. Kornilov and his close colleagues were arrested. See Hosking, 47.
[17] McCauley, The Soviet Union, 6.
[18] Peter Kenez, A History of the Soviet Union from the Beginning to the End (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 28.
[19] The Bolsheviks utilised the Soviet’s Military Revolutionary Committee and the Red Guards, a group of armed revolutionary workers, and gathered a following of radical soldiers and sailors. The movements of the forces were planned by Trotsky. See “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”, 998.
[20] The October Revolution had been planned to coincide with the the second All-Russian Congress of Soviets. When the Bolsheviks declared the Provisional Government had been overthrown and power had passed to the soviets the Mensheviks and Right Socialist Revolutionaries left the congress in protest, leaving Bolsheviks and left Socialist Revolutionaries in the majority. McCauley, The Soviet Union, 8.
[21] When the Constituent Assembly convened in November, Socialist Revolutionaries gained a majority of the votes, 40.4 %. The Bolsheviks, receiving no more than 24 %, promptly shut the assembly down. See “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”, 998.
[22] Wikipedia: Soviet Union, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union (accessed May 10, 2008).
[23] Some leading Bolsheviks resigned in protest against a one-party government. After about a month the party admitted some Left Socialist Revolutionaries into its folds, but they were forced to agree to Bolshevik policies. The Socialist Revolutionaries, however, left the government in protest against Lenin’s peace terms with Germany. Indeed, democracy was brutally quashed: in the next few months the Bolsheviks labelled all parties against the new regime as counterrevolutionaries and closed down non-Bolshevik newspapers and journals. See Kenez, 29-30.
The Rise and Decline of Buddhism in India
When Buddhism arose in India in the 6th century B.C.E. it quickly grew into a great religion, due to a multiplicity of reasons. Nevertheless, after several centuries it began to decline, and by the thirteenth century C.E. it had disappeared from its native land altogether.[1] A different set of environmental factors played a part in both the rise and the decline. At its inception, the spiritual climate of India was ideal for the founding of a new religion; Brahmanism had lost its appeal and the alternative ascetic practices that some resorted to were not suitable for the majority of people. Buddhism provided a path to Nirvana that everyone could take, and the innate compassion at the heart of the Buddha’s teachings drew many to it. But the gradual decay of its moral and intellectual standards and the emergence of a new Hinduism, combined with the anti-Buddhist campaigns of the Muslims, ushered the religion to its decline.
At the time Siddhartha Gautama[2] was born, India was a land of prevailing social unrest and political instability. There were sixteen major states and several smaller ones in northern India alone. Though there were many different forms of government, monarchies and oligarchical republics were predominant. A money economy had developed, giving rise to an immense accumulation of wealth in the mercantile class in particular. Merchants were frequently wealthier than kings, creating a dire struggle between political and economic power. As A.K. Warder observes, “In this society most people found their freedom seriously and increasingly restricted, their property and their lives insecure, the future uncertain and probably worse than the past.”[3]
The traditional religion of India, Brahmanism, could offer little comfort to the common people. The brahmins, the top social caste, had become extremely powerful due to their crucial role in the execution of sacrifices, which, if correctly performed, had immense mystical potency.[4] Nevertheless, few could afford to pay for these sacrifices. Brahmanism, with recondite teachings that were understood only by the uppermost elite, had little appeal for the masses.
Many were dissatisfied with Brahmanical society, and a number of unorthodox philosophical sects arose. The main schools were those of the Jains, Ajivikas, Lokayatas, and Agnostics. But the rigorous ascetic practices engendered by most of these were too exacting for the majority of householders.
The new school of unorthodoxy founded by the Buddha, on the other hand, demanded no intense physical austerities; his teachings were simple and empirical, accessible to all. Unlike Brahmanism, which was essentially ritualistic and mythological, the Buddha’s teachings were inherently psychological. He stated that each person could achieve Nirvana, the ultimate spiritual fulfilment and dissolution of the ego. He preached in the vernacular, Pali, so even the lower castes could hear his message. Buddhism effectively ignored caste – all castes could follow the Middle Way and eventually gain enlightenment, no matter how low they were in society. An order of nuns was established alongside an order of monks; in all of this there was a pervading notion of social equality that gave the religion strength. As well as the religion’s optimistic outlook on the potential of each individual to transcend suffering, its accessibility and democracy rendered it immensely appealing to the people.
The establishment of the Sangha[5] played an important role in the religion’s rise. The Sangha referred to the community of monks and nuns which linked all Buddhist monasteries together; it served as a spiritual example for the lay community. Buddhism was a proselytising religion; its monks and nuns were zealous about spreading the Buddha’s message, and some monks even risked their lives by travelling out of India to preach the way out of suffering. Thus, the Sangha played a crucial role to the early success of Buddhism.
Buddhism was also highly economical. The lavish expenditure required for Vedic sacrifices had taken its toll on many; monarchs had often taxed their subjects for the funds and those in poorer circumstances had no means of assuring their personal prosperity by sacrifice. Following the Eightfold Path of the Buddha, on the other hand, cost nothing.
The royal patronage Buddhism gained from its very inception further strengthened the religion. The Buddha, a Kshatriya prince who had forsaken his former life to gain enlightenment, attracted the notice of many kings. Bimbisara and Ajatasatru of Magadha and Prasenajit of Kosala were only a few of the numerous rulers who converted to the new religion.[6] The support of the ruling class would become significant to the propagation of Buddhism, but it was only one of the many factors that surrounded the religion’s rise. It was the innate merit of the Buddha’s teachings that, sowed in the right historical environment, assured the religion a blossoming future.
But Buddhism’s glory in India would not last forever: in the 7th century C.E., the Chinese Buddhist monk Hsüan Tsang noted that Theravada Buddhism was hovering on the verge of non-existence in most of the Indian subcontinent.[7] Buddhism as a whole had already embarked on a steady decline. It was becoming tainted in many ways: “From the end of the Gupta period onwards Indian religion became more and more permeated with primitive ideas of sympathetic magic and sexual mysticism, and Buddhism was much affected by these developments.”[8] The direct result of this permeation was the birth of a third vehicle,[9] “the Vehicle of the Thunderbolt”, Vajrayana. This new sect misinterpreted religious tenets and allowed the use of intoxicants; it was also lenient in the upholding of celibacy.[10]
The Sangha as a whole became corrupt. From the many donations it received, it became rich, and monks began to ignore the tenth rule of the Vinaya and accepted silver and gold. The Mahayana school introduced expensive rituals and ceremonies into the religion, causing it to cease to be economical.
Another Chinese traveller of the 7th century, Yuan Chwang, wrote “The different schools are constantly at variance, and their utterances rise like angry waves of the sea…there are 18 schools, each claiming pre-eminence.”[11] The many rivalries between sects destroyed the image the masses held of Buddhism. The religious texts of the Mahayana and Vajrayana schools began to be written in Sanskrit, a literary language that most Indians did not understand; this further distanced Buddhism from the common people.
Much of the decline of Buddhism was caused by its own failings; it could not meet the popularity of the re-emerged Hinduism. As an essentially non-theistic religion, it could not achieve the same success with the masses as Hinduism, which possessed a pantheon of gods that could intervene in the affairs of men if appeased. The moral corruption of Buddhism also caused a degeneration in its intellectual standards; the Hindus, on the other hand, had a strong scholarly foundation.
After the renowned Buddhist king Ashoka, the majority of Indian rulers supported the new Hinduism. It had the patronage of the Gupta rulers and most of the Rajput rulers, ensuring it prosperity and success among the people. Hinduism also incorporated many Buddhistic elements, such as preaching monks and religious processions; it further claimed the Mahatma Buddha as one of the incarnations of the lord Vishnu. Therefore the common man did not make any great distinction between Hinduism and Buddhism; the new Hinduism embraced some of Buddhism, making it unnecessary for the masses to honour Buddhism alone.[12]
Persecution of Buddhists also played a part in the downfall of the religion. The Muslim invasions left India scarred; the invaders destroyed Buddhist monasteries and universities wherever they went. As Warder writes, “It is hardly necessary to emphasise the thoroughness with which the older religions have been obliterated in practically every country where Muslims have ruled for any length of time.”[13] Though Hinduism was able to sustain itself through these times, Buddhism had been increasingly weak and these raids dealt a final blow.
To conclude, Buddhism from its inception was a religion that captured the enthusiasm of the rich and poor alike. It was a religion that preached a way out of suffering, in a simple and direct fashion that could be understood by the common man. Unlike the Brahmanism that had become too recondite and scholarly for the masses, Buddhism fulfilled the spiritual needs of the people; every person could work their way towards enlightenment. Its notions of social equality earned it much success and the establishment of the Sangha gave it strength. As it was a proselytising religion it spread quickly. It flourished for centuries, but eventually, the corruption of the Sangha, the rivalries between sects, and the lack of protection from the ruling class weakened Buddhism and made it unable to compete with the reformed Hinduism. The anti-Buddhist campaigns led by the Muslims caused its final downfall, and Buddhism eventually entirely disappeared from India between 1000 and 1200 C.E.[14] It left India with a rich legacy that was partially incorporated into Hinduism, and owing to the zest of the Buddhist missionaries, numerous countries were converted to Buddhism; many of them remain Buddhist to this day. Buddhism is at present a world religion, and humankind is the better for it.
Bibliography
Bailey, G. and Mabbett, I., The Sociology of Early Buddhism, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Basham, A. L., The Wonder That Was India: A Survey of the Culture of the Indian Subcontinent Before the Coming of the Muslims, London, Sidgwick and Jackson, 1954.
Conze, E., Buddhism: Its Essence and Development, Oxford, Bruno Cassirer, 1951.
De Bary, W. T., ed., Sources of Indian Tradition, vol. 1, New York, Columbia University Press, 1958.
Hirakawa, A., trans. & ed. Groner, P., A History of Indian Buddhism: From Sakyamuni to Early Mahayana, Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press, 1990.
Lamotte, E, trans. Webb-Boin, S., History of Indian Buddhism : from the origins to the Saka era, Louvain-la-Neuve, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut orientaliste, 1988.
Kitagawa, J.M. and Cummings, M.D., eds., Buddhism and Asian History, New York, Macmillan, 1989.
Ling, T., The Buddha: Buddhist Civilisation in India and Ceylon, London, Temple Smith, 1973.
Panikkar, K.M., A Survey of Indian History, London, Asia Publishing House, 1963.
Prebish, C.S., The A to Z of Buddhism, Lanham, Scarecrow Press, 2001.
Rice, E., Eastern Definitions, New York, Doubleday, 1980.
Robinson, R.H., et al., Buddhist Religions: A Historical Introduction, 5th ed., California, Wadsworth and Thompson, 2005.
Smith, H., The World’s Religions, San Francisco, Harper SanFrancisco, 1991.
Sharma, L.P., History of Ancient India, Delhi, Konark, 1987.
Thapar, R., A History of India, vol. 1, London, Penguin, 1990.
Thapar, R., Cultural Pasts: Essays in Early Indian History, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2000.
Warder, A.K., Indian Buddhism, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 1980.
[1] E. Conze, Buddhism: Its Essence and Development, Oxford, 1951, p.117.
[2] Called the Buddha (“Enlightened One”) by posterity; also known as Tathagata (“Thus-Come”) or Shakyamuni (“Sage of the Shakyas”). The accepted dates of his life are 567-487 B.C.E; see K.M. Panikar, A Survey of Indian History, London, 1963, p. 19.
[3] A.K. Warder, Indian Buddhism, Delhi, 1980, p. 30.
[4] Ibid, p. 67.
[5] Loosely translated as “Church”.
[6] L.P. Sharma, History of Ancient India, Delhi, 1987, p. 86.
[7] A.L. Basham, The Wonder That Was India, London, 1954, p.265.
[8] A.L. Basham, The Wonder That Was India: A Survey of the Culture of the Indian Sub-Continent Before the Coming of the Muslims, London, 1954, p. 265.
[9] The other two vehicles were Hinayana (“Lesser Vehicle”, also known as Theravada) and Mahayana (“Greater Vehicle”).
[10] A.L. Basham, The Wonder That Was India, London, 1954, p. 265.
[11] Quoted in L.P. Sharma, History of Ancient India, Delhi, 1987, p. 87.
[12] A.L. Basham, The Wonder That Was India, London, 1954, pp. 265-266.
[13] A.K. Warder, Indian Buddhism, Delhi, 1980, p. 508.
[14] E. Conze, Buddhism: Its Essence and Development, Oxford, 1951, p.117.
